Originally Posted By: Astro14
I appreciate AZJeff providing the cautionary tale, but what's missing from his tale is this: was the threat serious? Was the response both necessary and proportional?
If you're presented with a threat of serious bodily harm, or death, then a response involving lethal force is both necessary, and proportional to the threat. IF the threat isn't there, then the lethal force isn't justified, and you should anticipate being charged with attempted manslaughter, or worse, up to and including murder, depending on the circumstances.
A lethal threat must have all of the elements of ability, opportunity, and intent. And as far as your ability to determine the presence of those three elements, a reasonable man standard applies.
So, some of the examples given serve as useful case-studies. Drunk girl in a bikini wanders into the wrong house. She's unarmed. Against the big professional athlete, she has NO ability. Further, she has NO intent. Sure, she had opportunity, she was in the house, but without all three elements present, or reasonably believed to be present, there IS NO THREAT.
Kill someone who hasn't threatened you? That's murder, or at least, manslaughter.
And that's what's missing from the tale: what threat, if any, was presented? This guy got convicted because the prosecutor was able to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that one of those elements was MISSING, that the homeowner wasn't presented with a threat.
So, the real FYI should be this: if you're willing to defend yourself, be certain the you KNOW what is really a threat to you. Unarmed person stumbling around in your house isn't a lethal threat. You have to understand that ability, opportunity, and intent, must all be present for the threat to be present.
I've said this before, but it bears repeating here, that my threat assessment intention (call it a technique) is to remain at the top of the stairs and let any intruder know that I'm home and I'm armed. The valuables are downstairs. My family is upstairs. IF the intruder chooses to come upstairs, then it's clear that they are no longer interested in burglary, and if they choose to come upstairs against an armed homeowner, it's reasonable to believe that they themselves are armed. The threat elements are present. As an added tactical consideration, the threat axis is now narrowed to the stairs - easy to target.
If you don't understand WHEN you can shoot, you've got no business carrying a gun. It may be your Constitutional right, but without understanding of your legal, and ethical, responsibilities when in the exercise of that right, you shouldn't be armed.
you had me at drunk girl
